Standing Committee E

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Communications Bill

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It will not have escaped your notice that we have lost the opportunity to debate 16 clauses, as well as groups of amendments relating to local television services and the handling of complaints about contravention of conditions on television licensable content services licences. In effect, we lost the chance to debate clause 226 and amendments Nos. 16 to 19, which stand in my name. I raise this point of order not to whinge about that—although I am doing so—but because amendments Nos. 16 to 19 relate to clause No. 347, which we shall come to considerably later. Technically speaking, I could raise the issues on a clause stand part debate on that clause, but I could not move the amendments, because they were grouped for discussion at an earlier point.
 I understand the merit of the amendments being grouped as they are, because they relate to similar subjects, but that has had the perverse effect of their not being debated. I wonder whether, in those circumstances, you have discretion to reconsider the selection of amendments, Mr. Gale, so that my amendments can be grouped and debated under clause 347?

Roger Gale: So far as the grouping of amendments is concerned, I do not have discretion—I have total power. Not many in this place can say that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Chairman is bound by the sittings motion, but what happened this morning is unfortunate and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, so I shall consider the matter. As he rightly says, there is a short time before we come to clause 347. We shall see whether it is possible to accommodate his request on this occasion, but I must emphasise that I will not regard this as a precedent. Amendments are grouped, extremely skilfully, not by the Chairman but by the Clerk—albeit, obviously, with my approval. However, we will take another look at the matter.Clause 239 Regulation of independent radio services

Clause 239 - Regulation of independent radio services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Whittingdale: We have now come to a clause dealing with the regulation of independent radio. Whenever broadcasting is discussed, there is a tendency for attention to focus 99 per cent. of the time on television broadcasting, and for radio to get very little attention. I would be sad if that were the case in our proceedings, and I want to ensure that it does not happen.
 It is worth pausing and saying something about radio and the way in which the Bill proposes that it should be regulated. When Ofcom was first mooted as a single regulator bringing together five existing regulators, some were slightly concerned that, under Ofcom, the Radio Authority's role might only occupy Ofcom's time from 4 o'clock onwards on a Friday afternoon. I am sure that that will not be the case, but it is important that the Committee sends the message that we consider the role of radio to be important, and that Ofcom's responsibilities towards the radio sector are crucial. 
 It is arguable that the justification for the creation of Ofcom—the gradual convergence of various communications and media industries—may well, in time, embrace radio. However, radio currently lags behind in some respects. It has several distinct advantages that make it different from other communications industries. Its two greatest advantages are its transportability—one can carry a radio around or have one in the car—and the fact that one can do other things while the radio is on in the background. I suspect that every hon. Member will have had the experience that I have regularly. People say to me, ''I heard you on the radio this morning,'' and I say, ''Gosh, what was I talking about?'' and they say, ''I've absolutely no idea but I know you were on.''

John Greenway: No—they say, ''You were good!'' [Laughter.]

John Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend. Such experiences are typical of radio. It is there as a sort of wallpaper and every now and again one perks up when something comes on that sounds interesting. However, radio plays an important role. When considering this part of the Bill, I turned up the submission that was made by the Radio Authority to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry when this matter was first considered. The Radio Authority was right to say that
''The radio medium will remain distinct for the foreseeable future, and that distinctiveness will be more evident over the coming years as other media, including television, are more swiftly affected by the implications of technical convergence.''
 Ofcom will have a separate radio responsibility that is slightly different from its responsibility for other communications industries, but the radio industry feels that it is important that radio interests should not occupy the corner of one floor of the Ofcom building. Radio should be integrated into all of Ofcom's activities. The Minister may wish to address the fact that people in the radio industry are slightly concerned that they may be relegated to a second division in Ofcom's priorities. For many of us, radio is extremely important and we want Ofcom to acknowledge that. 
 It is impossible to consider the role of the regulation of independent radio without taking account of the fact that radio has one hugely dominant player. You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Gale, that I do not intend to repeat my speech of Tuesday morning, but when considering the regulatory regime for independent radio as set out in the clause, one should at least bear in mind the fact that the biggest radio broadcaster is not covered by it. The Radio Authority said in its submission: 
''The Radio Authority is concerned at the anomalous position into which the BBC is being forced in respect of its public service remit. Many of the activities of the BBC, while not in themselves driven by commercial imperatives, have a direct impact on the commercial radio industry. Thus commercial radio's main competitor operates without constraints from comparable regulation, distorting the market.''
 It went on to say: 
''We believe that the best way of achieving this regulation without compromising the BBC's essential independence is to place the BBC under the over-arching, converged regulator.''

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree whether we were talking about a large radio company or a very small one, it would have an effect on independent radio?

John Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the BBC's activities impact on all radio broadcasters, big or small, I entirely agree with him. I therefore hope that he accepts that the argument for subjecting the BBC to the regulatory regime is thereby strengthened. I said that I would not go over that argument again; suffice it to say that the organisation set up by the Government and given responsibility for the regulation of independent radio clearly believes that, because the main radio broadcaster is outside its scope and will be outside Ofcom's scope, the market is distorted. It believes that that distortion should be corrected. However, after failing to persuade the Minister of that on Tuesday, I do not expect him to change his mind suddenly this afternoon.
 Digital audio broadcasting is another aspect that will dominate much of the consideration of the regulation of radio, especially the question of licences—they are covered by later clauses but this seems an appropriate point at which to deal with them because we are considering the introductory clause of the chapter that deals with the regulation of independent radio. DAB has been a disappointment so far to those of us who think that it is an exciting technological development. We are not disappointed by the number of stations broadcasting digitally, because any number of stations do that. The disappointment is that nobody is listening to them. I suspect that that is not because people do not want to listen, but because it is incredibly difficult to find a digital radio receiver. 
 The biggest obstacle to the switchover to digital audio broadcasting is the apparent determination of retailers and manufacturers to make it as difficult as possible for people to purchase a product to enable them to listen. I visited Dixons on Victoria street just before Christmas. I saw an array of radio receivers—big ones, small ones, ones with digital displays, and ones with normal dials—and asked whether the shop stocked a digital radio receiver. There was a long pause and the assistant went off to find somebody else. On his return, he said, ''I think we have one. It's in the storeroom, if you want me to go and get it out.'' That is absolutely typical. 
 There is now an affordable digital radio receiver on the market. It is a little more expensive than old-fashioned radio receivers, but the Pure Evoke radio costs about £100, which brings it in reach of many 
 people. One would have thought that, now that there is a product for which there is huge demand, manufacturers would go out of their way to promote it. Ralph Bernard, who talked to the Westminster media forum a few weeks ago, said that the Pure Evoke radio receiver was this year's equivalent of the Thunderbirds Tracy Island, although I recall that it was much easier to get a Tracey Island than any of the radio receivers. There was a hope that they would take off this Christmas, but I have seen no evidence of that.

Andrew Robathan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Whittingdale: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) first.

Andrew Robathan: Seven years ago, in 1996, when we considered the Broadcasting Bill, we were told about—and I heard—digital audio broadcasting. We were told that it was about to take off and that it would be fantastic, yet seven years down the line, receivers are still rare.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend and I are veterans of that Bill. We spent much time discussing the exciting possibilities of digital audio broadcasting, and he is right to day that at that time, we could have expected that seven years later most of the population would have at least one digital radio receiver. However, we are a long way short of that.

Michael Fabricant: I can offer some hope. I can lend—not give—my hon. Friend a copy of a Radio Guide ''Listeners'' edition, which details the digital radios available. I understand that Peter Jones has such a radio in stock. The good news is that such radios were the great thing to buy this Christmas, and I am sure that that was not solely due to the Minister's eloquence. Three months from now, I gather that many receivers will be back in stock. The problem is not lack of interest from individuals, but that suppliers have been unable to meet demand.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall bear in mind his recommendation of Peter Jones when I next go through Sloane square. He has given me a rather attractive picture of an Evoke radio.
 All the evidence to date shows that there is considerable demand for the product. Part of the problem is that many people still do not know about digital audio broadcasting. Those who discover it are aware of its advantages—one has access to many more channels and can receive them with almost perfect clarity of sound. Once people learn that, the demand for digital audio broadcasting becomes greater, but only a few people are aware of it, and the vast majority of them find that it is impossible to purchase a receiver. Until we change that, digital audio broadcasting will not take off. 
 One of the biggest drivers—which is an unfortunate choice of word because of what I am about to say—of take-up would be the car companies, if they could be persuaded to fit digital radio receivers as an additional item in their vehicles.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Ford Motor Company is planning to fit digital radios as standard in all of its vehicles in the near future.

John Whittingdale: That is a very important development, but I wonder whether they will be fitted in only top-of-the-range vehicles.
Mr. Hoban indicated dissent.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is indicating to me that all vehicles will be fitted with digital radio. If that is the case, that will make a major impact, and very high numbers of people might take it up.
 This matter is of importance in everything that we will debate this afternoon, because all the conditions regarding licence renewal are predicated on the assumption that the commercial companies will continue to invest in digital radio. In the main, they have done so. They have expressed confidence in digital radio, and it is possible to get not only the BBC's many stations on digital radio, but commercial stations as well. However, commercial companies are in business to make a profit, so unless take-up increases fairly soon, there must be a slight danger that there may come a time when their shareholders will begin to ask questions about when they will see a return on the investment that they have made in digital radio. 
 Because of the operation of the knives, we were unable to debate the activities of the Radiocommunications Agency. I recognise that the opportunity to make the case has passed to some extent, and I do not seek to revisit that matter, but it is very important for the successful operation of independent radio companies that action is taken against piracy. If we had been given the opportunity to discuss that matter, I would have said a lot about piracy, and I wish to put on the record that we consider it to be a considerable threat to legitimate radio stations, and that we therefore regard Ofcom's role in enforcing legislation and taking action against illegal broadcasters as very important. [Laughter.] 
 It is also important in relation to the regulation of independent radio stations that radio receivers—either the traditional analogue receivers, or even a Pure Evoke radio, if one can find one—are no longer the only means by which one can receive radio stations. In recent years, there has been a dramatic growth in the number of stations that are first available via satellite. When reading the Bill, I noticed that radio stations that are purely broadcast from satellite do not come under the remit of Ofcom. Most radio stations will broadcast both on satellite and terrestrially. I accept that it is difficult to regulate a radio station that is only available via satellite, but I am curious to hear the Minister's views on that, because the growth in such stations is likely to continue in the coming years. 
 Many people now access the radio via the internet. A surprisingly high number of people now use their personal computers to listen to it.

Kim Howells: I do.

John Whittingdale: The Minister listens to the radio through his personal computer?

Andrew Miller: Digitally.

John Whittingdale: Indeed.
 Although it is clear that the Bill does not seek to regulate the internet, we are seeing the coming together of different technologies in this area. It is curious that in the field of radio regulation, some platforms and delivery mechanisms are within Ofcom's remit and some are outside it. Perhaps the Minister could say word about that aspect. 
 Radio is used for a variety of purposes, not all of which involve broadcasting programmes for a listener's entertainment or information. I have in my car a satellite navigation system, which is extremely valuable in my work as a Member of Parliament.

Andrew Robathan: Why?

John Whittingdale: I will explain. One reason why that system is so valuable is because it has a mechanism that tells me when there is a large traffic jam on the A12. Since I seem to spend a lot of my life on the A12, advance warning about traffic jams is useful. That system finds out about traffic jams through Trafficmaster, which uses the Classic FM radio band to talk to the computer in the back of my car. I am told that there is bit of space on that band that is not used for broadcasting Mozart which can be used to talk about the location of traffic jams. That is a different kind of broadcast radio service. I think that I am correct in saying that it would fall under the definition of additional radio services.
 I am interested to know how Ofcom would regard its role, if that were to extend into an area that most people would not regard as traditional for the regulation of broadcast media. The rapid development of technology in radio raises many interesting questions. I wanted, therefore, to take this opportunity at the beginning of the debate on this set of clauses to raise some of those questions and ask the Minister to respond.

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point fairly that this is the start of the debate on radio. On that basis, I am prepared to allow a fairly wide-ranging debate on the first clause in this set of clauses, should hon. Members wish to take advantage of that.
 I would like to place on the record and make it plain, in view of the ribaldry coming from the Government Back Benches, that my offshore broadcasting career took place prior to the passage of the Marine, &c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967, that it was entirely legal, and that it was in the finest spirit of free enterprise.

Michael Fabricant: It was not my intention to speak at length, but since my background is in radio broadcasting, I could not do anything other than support what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) has said.
 You and I were involved in independent local radio, Mr. Gale, and we both recall the old Independent 
 Broadcasting Authority. One reason why the IBA was discontinued and split into the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority was because the view at that time was that radio was getting a bad deal from the IBA and that it was always sidelined in favour of television.

John Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, as it will probably save the Committee time if I make this point now. You will recall, Mr. Gale, that in the Broadcasting Act 1990, and prior to that in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on which you and I served, the view was taken that a special regulator for radio was needed. The Radio Authority has done an outstanding job during the past 13 years. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I, too, think that there should be a strong voice for radio in Ofcom.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, to which the only possible response is to say, yes.
 I raised that little bit of history because—for reasons that we understand and do not oppose—radio and television regulation, with the Office of Telecommunications and other agencies, are being recombined. One of the most useful things that the Minister could do this afternoon is to reassure the radio industry that radio will not again be sidelined within a large organisation. 
 I wish to play a quick game of ''Trivial Pursuit''. This is an interesting time because this year we celebrate two great anniversaries: the 80th anniversary of the old British Broadcasting Company, which started broadcasting in 1923 and got its royal charter and became the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1926; and the 30th anniversary of independent local radio. My ''Trivial Pursuit'' question is, ''What was the name of the first legal independent radio station in the United Kingdom?''

Jim Murphy: It was on the Isle of Man.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right. Manx radio did precede independent local radio, because it operated under a different statutory regime. Most people think that Capital Radio, which started on 14 October, was the first independent radio station to get a licence. In fact, it was the London Broadcasting Company, LBC, which did so on 7 October.
 I am not planning to speak at length. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford described very well the points about the BBC. In fairness, I know of no other broadcasting organisation in the world that can compete in talk radio with Radio 4—or the Home Service, as some of us prefer to call it. Radio 4 performs so well not only because of the artistic strength within the company, but because of its large budget, which could not easily be funded by commercial broadcasting. 
 The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) said that he worked in America for some time and listened to its public service broadcasting radio station—National Public Radio. He should compare NPR's ''Morning Edition'' with its Radio 4 counterpart, the ''Today'' programme—one can listen to NPR on the internet. Surprisingly, the pace of ''Morning Edition'' is much slower than that of Britain's own ''Today'' programme. 
 I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that radio will not be sidelined under the new arrangements.

Kim Howells: I had been forewarned about the very early, flourishing days of the hon. Gentleman's career. I will say nothing about them.
 I am glad that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford raised the issue of the place of radio in the new Ofcom regime. I assure him and the hon. Member for Lichfield that in no circumstances will Ofcom relegate radio to some Friday afternoon position. I get virtually all my news and most of my entertainment from the radio, and I am determined to ensure that radio receives the consideration that it deserves. 
 The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked about the availability of digital radios. Although that is not covered by the clause, it is an important point. All too often, we are disappointed by the availability of units of the type that he mentioned. For the hon. Gentleman's information, over Christmas, digital radios were the product that people were trying to get hold of, but, as he said, it was easier to buy children's toys that were themselves regarded as scarce than digital radios, which is a great shame. BSkyB has done a great job in providing a platform for digital radio broadcasts and those are available everywhere, and I frequently use the service.

Simon Thomas: I accept that digital radio signals are available by satellite. That is how I receive radio in my office in Aberaeron, but in the rest of Wales there is very little digital radio service. The only coverage is in the north-east of Wales. In many other areas—part of the central belt in Scotland, for example—there is no digital radio service. Will the Minister comment on the roll-out of digital radio services and say some encouraging words about how the rest of the United Kingdom population will soon have access to the service, if not to the radio element?

Kim Howells: Yes, it is a real push-and-pull situation. I suspect that if demand were seen to be greater, much faster roll-out of the services would begin. We are reviewing the matter carefully. I am keen that we should all receive those enhanced services. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford who remarked on the difference in quality that digital provides. When one receives a good signal, the effect is quite staggering, and it is something that I would love everybody in this country to enjoy—although I am not sure that they ever will.

Simon Thomas: The Minister said that he was keeping the matter under review. Will he say specifically whether the review that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced last night in Oxford, which will consider the licence fee and its payment for digital services, will include digital radio? That tends to be overlooked in debate about digital services in general.

Kim Howells: I am sure that every aspect of the BBC's operations will be reviewed and I expect that the reception that people receive in their part of the country will be an important consideration in relation to the licence fee that they pay. I will try to ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of whoever carries out that review.
 I shall try to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. BBC radio is regulated by Ofcom under tier 1. There are no radio requirements under tier 2. Ofcom's licensing responsibilities cover only commercial radio, just as in the case of television. BBC radio will make statements of programme policy for each of its radio services, which will have exactly the same status as its statements for TV services. The hon. Gentleman suggested that pure satellite radio is not being regulated under the Bill. That is not entirely correct. Satellite radio that is provided from a place in the United Kingdom and is not otherwise authorised under the law of another European Economic Area state is covered as a radio licensable contents service.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is not right to say that because there is no practical way that we could regulate outside the United Kingdom anyway.

Kim Howells: That may well be the case but I am saying it anyway.
 I shall talk for a moment about additional radio services which the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford mentioned in relation to his routemaster service, which he is very pleased with. I do not have one in my car, but his advice seems to be that I should get one. Additional radio services such as traffic services are regulated by the Radio Authority and will continue to be regulated by Ofcom. At the moment they do not seem to be raising any particular problems, but I will touch wood on that front. 
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked about the rate of digital radio roll-out. I hate that word, but he knows what I am talking about. The commercial sector already covers 80 per cent. of the country and the Radio Authority licenses new multiplexes at the rate of about one a month, so it is making progress. Having said that, I sympathise as one who gets very frustrated at not being able to get digital radio reception.

Michael Fabricant: At the risk of angering the Minister, is he aware that six digital radio transmissions are also carried by Freeview?

Kim Howells: I am very pleased to hear that. I commend the clause to the Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 239 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 241 - Meaning of ''radio licensable content services''

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Lansley: I do not want to hold up proceedings, but some of what I was planning to say about clause 226 is technically part of the subject covered by clause 241. Clause 226 covered the meaning of television licensable content service, and we are dealing now with radio licensable content service. Under clause 241, the meaning of radio licensable content service is qualified by reference to
''its availability for reception by members of the public'',
 which is defined under clause 347. We will, in effect, debate such matters again, although we do not have the benefit of amendments being tabled to the clause, so I want to put down a marker. 
 The Minister will recall that, during the discussions of the Joint Committee, substantial effort was directed at the scope of the licensed sector for television and radio, on the basis that we must try to define or specify the boundary between broadcasting and the internet, without the intention of seeking to regulate the internet. If members of the Committee have not read paragraphs 286 to 298 of the Joint Committee's report, I hope that they will take the trouble to do so. The issues involved are well set out there. 
 As for not seeking to regulate the internet, I am not saying that certain aspects of it should not be subject to scrutiny. The principle of the argument is that what is illegal offline should be illegal online. In recent years, much legislation has gone through the House to try to achieve those objectives. Through a process of self-regulation, the internet has evolved beyond that which is generally illegal. In any case, the internet is international, and therefore difficult to regulate on a purely national basis. Its use by individuals is based on the fact that internet material is, in effect, pulled off the system by them, rather than pushed to them in the manner of broadcasting. 
 Can we find a description that defines more accurately the distinction between people drawing down material from the internet at their discretion and material pushed towards the public simultaneously by way of broadcasting? To help the discussion, I draw attention to the Joint Committee's report and evidence taken from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The example I give is that of ''Big Brother'', which could be seen on Channel 4, seen more extensively on E4, and seen online live—a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred. In the Secretary of State's view, the material on Channel 4 would be subject to all the broadcast regulatory applications, so it would be subject fully to public service obligations. Transmission on E4 would be licensable content subject to tier 1 regulation, and the material on the internet would not be subject to regulation because it would not be a licensable content service. 
 There is a problem with the definitions. Clause 347 is headed ''Meaning of 'available for reception by members of the public''' However, services will not be regarded as available for reception by members of the public if three conditions are met. The third of those conditions is: 
''that the individual selections . . . do not include any that are limited to electing to be one of the recipients of material . . . offered for reception on the basis''
 that it has been 
''selected by the provider . . . for broadcasting or distribution simultaneously, or virtually so''.
 In the case of ''Big Brother'', the material presented on the internet was specifically designed to be received simultaneously by members of the public. It could hardly be otherwise.

Simon Thomas: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the difference between a broadcast and the internet—he said that, in one, the service was sent to the individual and, in the other, the individual reached out to receive it. However, in the example that he is giving now, a key concern must be the cross-promotion of the different media. When people watched ''Big Brother'', they were encouraged to go online to see it live. As the hon. Gentleman has said, such live service is not controlled and does not have a watershed. That leads to consideration of the fact that, increasingly, broadcasts will be available with a click on the right web address. That seems to be a different type of internet broadcast to the one that the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

Roger Gale: Order. The flow of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has been interrupted, so it is a good time to point out that although we have been more or less in order when discussing clause 241, and although I do not yet propose to let my judgment be coloured when considering the hon. Gentleman's requests, he is coming perilously close to trying to have his cake and eat it, too.

Andrew Lansley: I quite understand, Mr. Gale. I am using this opportunity to put an argument to the Minister. We will come to clause 347 later. The Minister will decide to what extent he wishes to engage in the debate and perhaps accept some of the arguments that the Joint Committee and I made—arguments that the Government have not taken up and responded to.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is raising an interesting argument that develops one that I raised during discussion on an earlier clause. He cited ''Big Brother'', which is obviously a television programme rather than a radio programme. However, what has happened with ''Big Brother'' could equally happen with a radio programme. A programme could go out in one format that is subject to regulation and in another format that is not. While ''Big Brother'' was being broadcast on E4, during the live transmission late at night, a discussion among remaining members of the house was blanked by the broadcaster. Only visual images were broadcast, not sound. I do not
 know why that was done, although I have heard speculation about the subject that was being discussed and why it was felt inappropriate to broadcast it on television.
 At the time, the matter came under the ITC or the Broadcasting Standards Commission; in future, such a matter will come under Ofcom. However, there will be no equivalent regulation of the internet broadcasts. The problem applies to radio content as well as to television content.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. If one were broadcasting live on the internet and on the radio, in a licensable content service, one might have to block material in the regulated sector. If one had to block material because it might give rise to civil action, it would not follow that one should be able to broadcast it with impunity on the internet. Exactly the same considerations apply.
 The intention is that the tier 1 obligations, of which that might be an example, do not flow on to internet material. The question is whether, under the Bill, we can set up a structure for the longer term that genuinely distinguishes between radio licensable content services, which should be regulated to the extent that the Bill intends them to be, and other material that happens to be on the internet. I am working towards the push-and-pull distinction. The problem is that the Bill cannot simply say that material that is pulled, not pushed, is internet material and therefore not to be regulated. 
 I shall not trespass on your patience, Mr. Gale, by dwelling on the structure of the amendments, but I am trying to say that a sequence of selections is the closest that we can get to that. The question is what kind of sequence and selections constitute pulled, not pushed, material. We all know that we press a button to turn a television on: that is not a selection; it is merely activating a network. We then choose a channel, but that should not be regarded as pulling material, because the material is pre-packaged. However, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion implied, if one is listening to a radio programme and presses a red button on the digital radio to get a running commentary or additional service, that might be regarded as internet material that is pulled down. 
 Perhaps we should not get so hung up on defining the internet and should instead define circumstances in which we do not need long-term highly regulatory structures that are designed to frustrate people receiving legal material provided by others. That is quite distinct from broadcasting, which is, in effect, the prior packaging and accumulation of material that is to be received by large numbers of people simultaneously. I hope that the Minister will explain how that can be accomplished under the Bill, but I think it more likely that he will say that we need further amendments if the Bill is genuinely to achieve that objective.

Kim Howells: That was a fascinating description of how quickly things are moving. Whenever I try to describe the distinction between what we are covering in the Bill and what the internet provides, I say that
 there is between the two a very wobbly frontier that keeps moving and will continue to change quickly.
 This morning, I offered to write to the hon. Gentleman about the amendments grouped under clause 226 on television licensable comment services. I shall certainly do that, but I shall now try to ensure that the letter also gives a full response on the issues that he has just raised. I shall now try to stick more closely to clause 241. I am confused by the way that we moved from clause to clause in the last sitting and this one, although it is important that we have broader debates such as this, because the clauses are linked all the way through the Bill. 
 Clause 241 defines radio licensable content services so as to include all sound programmes broadcast primarily for reception by members of the public from a satellite or through an electronic communications network to places in the EEA, whether in analogue or digital form. As the hon. Gentleman told us, the term 
''available for reception by members of the public''
 is defined in clause 347 so as to exclude one-to-one services on cable, satellite or multiplex services. The effect is that radio on demand, for example, will not require licensing as an RLCS service. In the past, satellite and cable services have required different licences. Under the Bill, both types of service will be subject to one type of licence. That is why the clause should be added to the Bill.

John Whittingdale: I am familiar with the concept of video on demand, but less familiar with the concept of radio on demand. Simply for my own information, what is radio on demand and how does it work?

Kim Howells: I shall explain how I understand it. When I am working on my computer, I often tune in via the internet to a jazz station, albeit not Jazz FM because all too often that does not play jazz anymore.

Chris Bryant: That is by the by.

Kim Howells: It is indeed. As a consequence, I can access radio via the internet, although it might not be radio that is broadcast in this country.

John Whittingdale: That is a very different concept to video on demand. I can choose what I watch if I use video on demand: for example, I can choose to watch a specific film, which will be sent down to me. From the Minister's explanation of radio on demand, I could not choose to listen to a specific piece of music, but would simply receive a radio station.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman will have heard many adverts on the BBC suggesting that if people want to hear a programme again, it can be pulled down at any time from the web. The system is in its infancy but it is available because the BBC offers the service at the moment.

John Greenway: Does that mean that we could get the radio programme ''Dead Ringers'' on demand via the internet? If so, could we get a computer in the Room in order to entertain us throughout the afternoon?

Kim Howells: Almost certainly.

John Whittingdale: Now I know what the phrase refers to, I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for
 Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the programme is available on the BBC website.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 241 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 243 - Modification of ss. 241 and 242

Amendment made: No. 520, in 
clause 243, page 214, line 18, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.—[Dr. Howells.] 
Clause 243, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 244 to 246 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 247 - Extension and modification of existing licences

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 434, in
clause 247, page 216, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(2A) An application under subsection (1) may only be made in the period which— 
 (a) begins three years before the date on which the licence would otherwise expire; and 
 (b) ends three months before the day that OFCOM have determined to be the day by which they would need to publish a notice under section 98(1) or 104(1) of the 1990 Act if they were proposing to grant a fresh licence to take effect from that date. 
 (2B) A determination for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b)— 
 (a) must be made at least one year before the day determined; and 
 (b) must be notified by OFCOM to the person who holds the licence in question.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 435 to 450.

Kim Howells: The amendments will put time limits on applications for the extension of local or national analogue radio licences. That will correct an omission in the Bill. The intention to include such a provision was set out in paragraph 8.4.1.3 of the policy document that accompanied the draft Bill in May. Regrettably, the necessary provisions were omitted from the Bill. The amendments put the omission right and extend the same provision to related provisions.
 The clause gives the holder of a national or local analogue radio licence the right to make an application for the extension of the licence by four years, meaning that the duration changes from eight years to 12 years. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 247, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 248 - Renewal of local licences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: The clause follows on not only numerically, but logically, from clause 247. It amends the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of the renewal of digital licences. Pressure is growing among radio
 operators who hold digital licences to have licences extended automatically. A current radio licence for a digital service is currently of between 20 and 24 years' duration, depending on the type of licence, and the clause would extend the licence to between 32 and 36 years if there were an automatic licence extension.
 I share the Radio Authority's view 20 to 24 years is long enough to regain one's original investment. I realise that additional equipment, including transmission equipment, has to be purchased, but such factors would have been taken into account when the digital licence was originally awarded. Will the Minister give a steer to the industry? Does he share my view and that of the Radio Authority that a 20 or 24-year licence is long enough to regain the original costs of setting up a digital radio service?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend touches on an important question. As he said, the Radio Authority accepted the case for a 12-year extension of analogue licences, and the Government included that in the Bill. However, when the matter was originally debated, the industry asked for an extension of 15 years.
 As my hon. Friend said, it has been suggested that the extension should be decided on a rolling process. The original justification for the extension of licences was based on the investment in digital. In return for the commitment made by commercial stations to a digital future—incurring the costs involved in investing in digital broadcasting—they should get some recompense in the form of a licence extension. However, the speed with which the take-up of digital is occurring has been disappointingly slow. If that continues, although the extension is welcome, it may not be sufficient. Will the Minister tell us why 12, rather than the 15 years originally suggested by the commercial radio companies, is an appropriate extension?

Kim Howells: Twelve years was judged to be an appropriate period for extension partly on the same grounds as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield. There was a feeling that 24 years is a lengthy period of time to hold a licence. I can offer no more explanation than that. The ways in which figures are decided are often matters of judgment. However, he was correct in saying that a further extension—if there has already been one—could mean that licences are held for 24 years.

Michael Fabricant: Thirty years.

Kim Howells: Or 30 years, which is a long time for a licence to be held and sufficient time in which to recover costs. When it comes to the provision of services, there is a need to test the market from time to time through a licensing process.

John Whittingdale: On that point, will the Minister accept that the market can be tested at any time? There is nothing to prevent anybody seeking to acquire an existing licence at any stage.

Kim Howells: I take that point, but it often helps if there is a certain point or focus at which a change in the market is seen to be possible. At such times,
 companies have been successful in bringing new blood into the industry—I am sure that we can all think of examples. The judgment is not made on any scientific basis, but through experience.
 The clause adds to factors that Ofcom must take into account when agreeing to the renewal of a local analogue licence when a broadcaster has committed to broadcasting on the relevant digital multiplex. At present, Ofcom is required to grant a licence provided it is satisfied that the applicant would provide a local service with any conditions imposed to secure the character of the licensed service. Ofcom must also satisfy itself that the nominated local digital sound programme service that the applicant provides is broadcast by means of a nominated local radio multiplex service and that that is what is needed in the locality. 
 The clause adds a third factor by requiring Ofcom to satisfy itself that the period and times at which the nominated local digital sound programme service will be available under the renewed licence will not be significantly different, week by week, from those for and at which the licensed local service will be broadcast. It closes a potential loophole in the Bill that would allow the broadcaster to obtain a renewal of his local analogue licence by broadcasting on a digital multiplex for, say, only a few hours a week. 
 Clearly, we, and listeners generally, would expect broadcasters to broadcast a service that is essentially the same as their analogue service, not just a pared-down version of it. The clause will ensure that that will be the case. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 249 and 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 251 - Promotion of simulcast radio services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Greenway: This strikes me as an important clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has already referred to the slow progress in the roll-out and take-up of digital radio. I mentioned the problem earlier and I am sure that the Minister accepts that it is hugely disappointing. The clause provides Ofcom with powers that could be extremely important to the future roll-out of digital radio services. It allows it to award national radio licences to applicants who may not necessarily have made the highest cash bid for the licence if they are, at the same time, proposing to roll out in simulcast the digital signal.
 I do not believe that we can speculate—it is difficult to do so—on the trade-off between offering less for the licence and meeting the cost of making the service available through simulcast to digital listeners. Clearly, the funds that the Government have made available to the BBC through the enhanced licence fee have begun to spawn a range of digital radio services. I 
 referred earlier to ''Dead Ringers''. I am grateful for its transmission last Friday, which was repeated on Saturday; it really poked fun at the scale of the BBC digital radio services that are being rolled out, which apparently no one is listening to. That is partly because of the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred, which is that few people have a digital receiver capable of allowing the listener to tune in to such services. However, that is a separate issue. 
 I want to raise two points with the Minister. Has Ofcom, on the advice of the Radio Authority, given any thought to the trade-off? I am trying desperately to recall an earlier clause that gave rise to discussions about Ofcom being able to make grants to licence holders. It was probably when we debated radio spectrum, when I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the grants would encourage digital roll-out. I was told that that was a possible area where they may be available. It would be helpful if, in due course, not only the Committee but the commercial radio industry as a whole knew what the trade-off might be between the value to public policy of encouraging digital radio roll-out, through lower licence fees to enable companies to be reassured that they would benefit by simulcasting the programme. 
 In a sense, that reflects the difficulty that we discussed at length in relation to the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 on the trade-off between the quality of the service and the highest price. I specifically recall having an argument with Labour Members about whether the Bill should not prescribe what these new national radio stations should be, because the industry was more capable of determining what would be successful. The end result of all that was Classic FM, which we would not have got had the 1990 Act prescribed free radio stations because a classical music service was never even on its agenda. In the end the Radio Authority accepted Classic FM's bid although it was not the highest bid for that national FM frequency. 
 If for no other reason, this is a valuable intervention in that it reminds the Committee of that fact. The other difficulty that we had was in recognising that the amount of FM spectrum was limited, whereas medium wave—that is my preferred definition, but it is known generally as AM spectrum—was more widely available but the quality of reception, as we all know, is by no means as good, particularly in the hours of darkness. If I drive home to Yorkshire on a Thursday night and I try to listen to Radio Five Live, I am tuning in and out and I am never quite sure which is the right frequency to be on—909 or 693. We do not have that difficulty with digital. The clause is a good point at which to pause and ask the Minister to reflect on the extent to which the Government seriously want to promote digital radio, because it is a mechanism by which the whole venture could be encouraged and furthered. 
 The next question that I would like the Minister to address will almost certainly be in his speaking notes. Subsection 6 tries to anticipate the possibility that, in order to secure a licence for less than the highest bid, a successful licence applicant may think to himself, ''I'll 
 offer, and promise to do, the simple tasks,'' but if in the fulness of time no-one is listening to the service because so few people have got digital receivers as they are prohibitively expensive, he may think ''I'll switch off the simulcast and just continue broadcasting on the FM or AM signal.'' 
 The draftsmen of the Bill appear to have tried to anticipate that problem by saying in subsection 6 that Ofcom will require the licence holder 
''to do all that he can to secure the broadcasting of that service''—
 presumably in simulcast fashion. Does that include the threat of withdrawing the licence? That would in one sense be an understandable proposition, but one that would be fraught with difficulty in that such a service may have already accumulated a significant body of listeners through the normal, non-digital spectrum—whether FM or AM—so there is not a great deal of interest in listening to the programme digitally, especially if it was on a station that mainly broadcast speech programmes. 
 It is not easy to resolve that matter, and I am not trying to score a cheap point. This is a genuinely important issue.

Chris Bryant: I think that either the hon. Gentleman is mistaken or I have misunderstood what he said.

John Greenway: Or it could be both.

Chris Bryant: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the only way in which a radio service can be simulcast—it is a portmanteau word—is if it is simultaneously broadcast on analogue and digital services using digital audio. In the industry, however, the most common understanding of the word ''simulcast'' refers to a broadcast radio channel that is simultaneously put online. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to that earlier in respect of his jazz channel in the United States. Does the Minister think that that is included?

John Greenway: I will try desperately to remember part III of the 1990 Act, because it was some years since we passed that. I rely on the definition in clause 250(1), which will change section 41(2) of the 1996 Act, whereby
''a 'simulcast radio service' means a service provided by a person for broadcasting in digital form and corresponding to a service which is a national service within the meaning of Part 3 of the 1990 Act.''
 I conclude from that that—

Chris Bryant: Online is excluded.

John Greenway: Yes. I do not remember discussing online radio services during the progress of the 1990 Act. I do not claim to be an expert in these matters. I simply want to voice the fact that although I do not have an easy solution, I have a deep-seated view about the issue. We rightly tried when we were in office, and the present Government are trying, to promote the concept of the analogue television switch-off in order to get everyone connected to digital television and to promote a public policy that is shared across the political divide, and which I believe is entirely worthy.
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the Minister, I find myself listening to more radio than I watch television. I 
 have a sense that we are not promoting the digital radio world with the same degree of enthusiasm as digital television. I think that we ought to do that, because the benefits are immense. I am convinced that when one listens to music, the sound quality is significantly better, although drama can be equally compelling. There is so much high quality content being broadcast using ropey signals that it is difficult to get proper reception half the time, especially on AM in the winter months. The obvious solution is digital. We could, perhaps, have paused and debated the matter. I have tried desperately to remain in order, but from the Minister's reaction I think that he has seized on questions and issues that I have raised. We look forward to his response.

Andrew Lansley: I shall try not to hold up our progress for too long. I was reminded, not least by what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said about routemaster—

Andrew Robathan: Trafficmaster.

Andrew Lansley: It is a data service provided through digital broadcasting. That reminded me that during the last Parliament we considered the question of section 54 of the 1996 Act, which required that in respect of a national and local radio multiplex licence, at least 90 per cent. of the digital capacity provided was to be available for the broadcasting of digital sound programme services, simulcast radio services, programme-related services or relevant technical services. If we are now in the business of promoting simulcast radio services, one of the ways of doing that is by examining the extent to which licensees who were required to comply with it are doing so.
 I am enough of an anorak in these matters to recall that in May 1998 that figure was reduced from 90 per cent. to 80 per cent. by the Broadcasting (Percentage of Digital Capacity for Radio Multiplex Licence) Order 1998. For my sins, I was a member of the Committee that examined that. We did not discuss it at great length. I think that we still have that 80 per cent. limit. If that is the case, do we need the promotion facility in order to disregard the highest cash bids? 
 That shift from 90 per cent. to 80 per cent. was intended to stimulate the provision of digital services. Data services were cash-generative in a way that some of the other services were not, and that offered a degree of flexibility that was supposed to bring forward those digital services that would stimulate the market. The risk of going in the opposite direction is that one could create a squeeze on the providers who are looking to provide data services alongside simulcast radio services. One might exclude them when the net effect of providing those data services is to stimulate the market.

Kim Howells: At present, national analogue licences are awarded to the highest bidder, and we want to retain that system, but we also want to create a level playing field for broadcasters.
 I wish to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ryedale because they are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) told me that 80,000 digital radios were sold in the three weeks before Christmas, and he knows about such things. That is quite a lot of new products, so it is important news. 
 The hon. Member for Ryedale is about the same age as me so I hope that he will not call me old-fashioned for saying that I believe that content is king. That must be focused on, if digital television and radio are to be driven forward. 
 Governments should not prop up businesses or industries that cannot hack it, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should do that. I wonder what would happen in terms of allegations of unfair state aid and so forth if we were to start to dole out money to companies. 
 People will not buy digital radio just to get analogue simulcasts. We need new series—programmes that people want to listen to—and the hon. Gentleman mentioned a few of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston passed me a note that can serve to make an important point about drawing down radio shows on demand. His wife missed the revelation about Brian's love life in ''The Archers''. I heard it and was shocked by what goes on in rural areas—[Laughter.] However, she was able to call down that episode. 
 As the hon. Gentleman talked about some of the efforts that are being made—some of the drama, and so forth—I wish to pay tribute to the new services that the BBC, for example, is offering. They have been given a bit of a battering in this Committee in one way or another, but some of them are tremendous. They are an important part of what makes digital radios attractive. 
 The hon. Member for Ryedale asked an important question about whether licences could be withdrawn. The answer is yes. If a broadcaster has not done all that he or she could, Ofcom can revoke or shorten a licence or fine the broadcaster. I hope that that helps him. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) indirectly asked whether simultaneous internet provision of a service is a simulcast for the purposes of the 1990 Act. I am told that it is not. Simulcasting for these purposes means broadcasting by wireless telegraphy.

John Whittingdale: Representing a rural area as I do, I was not at all shocked. The Minister said earlier that content is king, and I am sure that he is absolutely right. There is a slight comparison with British Telecom, which tells everyone how wonderful broadband services are. However, people find that they cannot get broadband services. Now that the BBC is promoting its digital channels at every opportunity, people cannot get a receiver to listen to them. The Minister says that 80,000 were sold, and that is a significant figure. However, he should compare that with the sale of millions of DVD players, which are a very recent technological
 development. DAB receivers are still a long way behind.

Kim Howells: There is a critical stage in sales. I remember a few years ago thinking ''Why on earth would I want a DVD? I have video.'' I have since bought a DVD, and it is great.

Chris Bryant: A simple point is being missed: every house that has digital satellite has a DAB receiver.

Kim Howells: I mentioned that earlier. I am interested in the DVD example because the content and quality are so good. It is a real step-up from video. One can do a great deal with it, and that is probably why it is so popular.
 Until such time as there are enough digital radios for broadcasters to be able to recoup some of their costs through advertising revenues, digital broadcasting remains a cost to the industry. That could mean that an applicant for a national licence who did not want to simulcast on the national digital multiplex was at a commercial advantage compared with a broadcaster who was prepared to bear the cost of digital broadcasting. 
 Clearly, that would not encourage the take-up of digital radio services. To counterbalance that, we propose to allow Ofcom to award a national analogue licence to a low bidder if they propose to simulcast the service on a national digital multiplex. I take the point of the hon. Member for Ryedale that an applicant may make such a promise when bidding only to find out later than their entire audience consisted of four men and a dog. They may then try to get out of that commitment. The Government would certainly expect Ofcom to act decisively in such a situation. We believe that that will help to maintain the encouraging momentum that digital radio is building. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 251 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 252 and 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 254 - Access radio

Brian White: I beg to move amendment No.497, in
clause 254, page 222, leave out lines 7 to 10.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.490, in 
clause 254, page 222, line 7, leave out from 'services' to 'the' in line 8, and insert 'shall prohibit'.
 New clause 32—Community radio— 
'—(1) In subsection (2) of section 84 of the 1990 Act, after paragraph (a)(iii) there shall be inserted— 
 ''or 
 (iv) for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or of a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes (a ''community service'').''. 
 (2) In subsection (6) of section 104 of the 1990 Act, in paragraph (b) after ''satellite'' there shall be inserted '', community''. 
 (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ''(6A) In determining whether or to whom to grant a licence to provide a community service and the duration of such licence OFCOM shall have regard to— 
 (a) the extent to which the service would confer significant benefits on the public or on the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided; 
 (b) the extent to which the proposed service is supported by the public or the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided; 
 (c) the extent to which the proposed service includes provision for public access to training, production and broadcast facilities; and 
 (d) the extent to which the proposed service includes measures to ensure accountability to and participation by the public or the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided.'' 
 (4) After section 49 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted— 
 ''49A Reservation of digital capacity for community radio services 
 (1) In exercising their powers to grant local radio multiplex licences, OFCOM shall reserve such digital capacity as they consider appropriate for digital sound programming and additional services which are operated for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or in a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes (''digital community services''). 
 (2) In performing their duty under subsection (1) OFCOM shall endeavour to ensure that every community radio service which is licensed to broadcast other than in digital form is also able to be received in digital form. 
 (4) Where a local multiplex licence is granted in respect of a locality in which digital capacity is reserved in pursuance of this section, the licence shall include such conditions as appear to OFCOM to be appropriate for the purpose of securing that the holder of the licence uses such digital capacity for the broadcasting of such services.'' 
 (5) In subsection (2) of section 50 of the 1996 Act, after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted— 
 ''(dd) stating whether in pursuance of a direction under section 49A any digital capacity on the frequency or frequencies in that locality is to be reserved for digital community services''.'.
 New clause 34—Development of community media— 
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for— 
 (a) any of the provisions of Part 2 or Part 3 (apart from this section), or 
 (b) any provision of Part 1, Part 2 or Part 3 of the 1990 Act or of Part 1 or Part 2 of the 1996 Act 
 to have effect, in relation to services of such descriptions as may be set out in an order under this section, with such modifications as he considers necessary or appropriate for services of that description. 
 (2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section in relation to any description of services unless— 
 (a) the description is of services to be provided primarily for the benefit of members of the public or of a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes; 
 (b) he considers that the provision of services of that description confers, or would confer, significant benefits on the public or on the particular community for which they are provided. 
 (3) The power, by order under this section, to make incidental, supplemental or consequential provision in connection with provision authorised by subsection (1) includes power to make incidental, supplemental or consequential provision modifying provisions of the 1990 Act, the 1996 Act or this Act that are not mentioned in that subsection. 
 (4) No order is to be made containing provision the making of which is authorised by this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
 New clause 36—Community radio (No.2)— 
'—(1) In subsection (2) of section 84 of the 1990 Act after paragraph (a)(iii) there shall be inserted— 
 ''or— 
 (iv) for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or of a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes (a ''community service'')''. 
 (2) In subsection (6) of section 104 of the 1990 Act in paragraph (b) after ''satellite'' there shall be inserted '', community''. 
 (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ''(6A) In determining whether or to whom to grant a licence to provide a community service and the duration of such licence OFCOM shall have regard to the extent to which— 
 (a) the service would confer significant benefits on the public or on the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided; 
 (b) the proposed service demonstrates evidence of support by the public or the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided; 
 (c) the proposed service includes provision for public access to training, production and broadcast facilities; 
 (d) the proposed service includes measures to ensure accountability to and participation by the public or the particular community for which it is proposed to be provided; and 
 (e) the proposed service would be distinctive from local sound broadcasting services licensed to cover over 50 per cent. of the proposed service's coverage area.''.'.

Brian White: Please excuse my voice. I am going down with a cold. [Hon. Members: ''Ah.'']
 The title of the clause is ''Access radio'', but we should be talking about community media because the Bill is about convergence. In that context, the title causes problems, and the same applies to clause 153. 
 Amendments Nos. 497 and 490, and new clauses 34 and 36 result from the fact that I am a member of the all-party community media group and the all-party commercial radio group. They will be holding a joint meeting next week, and, as the advertisements say, all are welcome. 
 I spoke to members of both groups before Christmas, and they were concerned about several issues. Their concerns were not that far apart, and I brought both groups together to talk about their differences. They agreed that commercial radio recognises that there should be community media—community radio, in this case—and that it is right to promote it. They also agreed that the Bill should set out the factors that determine the licensing of community radio. The purpose of my provisions is to start a debate on those issues in Committee. 
 The groups also compromised on introducing a replacement for clause 254 that would allow both points of view to be heard. Having agreed on a compromise, however, they went back to their original positions. Amendment No. 490 represents commercial radio's original position. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is in Westminster Hall, was going to speak to the amendment that reflected the community media position. The two positions are not that far apart, and there is a way forward. One purpose of my provisions is to get the Minister to address those issues. He will be relieved to 
 know, however, that I shall not press any of my proposals to a vote. 
 The key issue is funding. Is advertising the right way forward for community media? What impact would such developments have on small commercial radio stations? I would like the Minister to consider a couple of issues when he responds to amendment No. 490. If we allow advertising, will it distort the character of community radio? How will small community media get advertising? That is a time-consuming process, which will require a lot of effort on the part of many local radio stations. The crux question is whether commercially funded community radio will be nicking advertising from small commercial radio stations. In reality, there will be no danger of that if the two reach agreement, and the purpose of my new clauses is to promote agreement.

Kim Howells: I would like to ask my hon. Friend about an issue in which I am very interested. I saw Southampton local television in operation, and people there were excited about the prospect of harvesting advertising that regional television could not touch. They gave the example of a local Indian restaurant that could not afford to take out regional advertising. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a level of advertising that is not being tapped?

Brian White: As a Tottenham supporter, I do not like the word Southampton at all. However, the Minister is right that there is advertising that does not go to commercial radio and which could be used locally. I agree that that is a way forward.
 It is a question of balance, and one can see the arguments at the opposite extreme. However, there must be a way of getting the two sides to agree along a continuum. When there is community media, the principle of mixed funding will be the right one. It is important that there be a mixture of public and private, and that the process be independent. We should recognise the fact that community media are social enterprises and have a different character from commercial radio. In promoting community media we should ensure that we make known the fact that it is about localised services and about reflecting a different demography. In doing so, we should promote different economic ways forward. The economic regeneration of some areas is a key task that community media will play a part in. 
 One problem is the impact on small commercial radio stations. Will the Minister address the way in which Ofcom will deal with such stations? The Joint Committee considered the problem and made a number of proposals, which the Government accepted. However, the Committee also pointed out the extent to which commercial planning for access radio is compatible with the distinctness of commercial radio, and that that sector would not be undermined. In response, the Government said that they agreed with the Committee's conclusions, although they said nothing about how that key point would be addressed. 
 The purpose of the amendments is to get the Minister to consider such issues, and to highlight the fact that, although there is a difference of opinion 
 between the two sides, I do not think that they are that far apart. With effort and the promotion of the Minister, the two sides could be brought together. The Bill could promote a useful community media tier, but one that needs proper funding.

Nick Harvey: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who is, as has been explained, debating in Westminster Hall this afternoon, I say a few words. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) has put his name to two amendments that, on the face of it, have opposite impacts. However, he has rightly explained that he is probing for a response from the Minister.
 Community radio should be able to draw on various funding sources. The principle of a mixed funding base will be important to it as it develops. Prohibiting community radio from taking any advertising or commercial sponsorship would be like asking it to operate with one hand tied behind its back. As the hon. Gentleman said, the principle of community radio is broadly that it is non-profit-making and is there to provide a service to the community. Preventing community radio from taking any advertising would restrict unnecessarily and artificially its ability to grow and develop. 
 However, I am also in favour of the general principle of giving that sector a definition in law. That will be a healthy influence on it, and will help it to develop, find commercial support and raise funds in the private sector. That is recognised in the regulatory regimes of many countries, and it would be helpful to go down the line of the new clauses in trying to do the same thing.

John Whittingdale: The amendments moved by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East go to the heart of the debate. The principle of access radio—or community radio, a perhaps better description that I think the hon. Gentleman would prefer—is one that one most of us strongly support. I was interested when the concept was first mooted, and the pilot programme has been successful. Clearly, it is now time to roll it out further.
 Financing lies at the heart of the problem. I wish to talk about my constituency, because the experience in the Maldon area absolutely identifies the problem. For the past three years, a tiny radio station has operated on a restricted service licence during the Christmas period. Last year, it broadcasted from about 9 December through to the beginning of January. It operates from, and is part of, the high school, and is run by the children and some of the staff. There is no doubt that it has been helpful in providing an educational opportunity for the pupils who participated in the running of it. It is locally based, broadcasting in Burnham-on-Crouch, which is a relatively small town, and has achieved a phenomenal audience. 
 I was on the station during each of the three broadcasting periods. The first time, I gave my desert island discs, which were a bit of a shock to people in Burnham who had not heard of Judas Priest. I was a bit surprised by the number of people who later told 
 me that they were a bit surprised. However, that was an indication of the station's popularity. A survey done afterwards showed that some 4,000 people in Burnham and the neighbouring villages had tuned into the station at some stage. That represents a majority of the population of the area. 
 There is no doubt that there is a demand for community radio, which is identified as central to the very localised area in which it broadcasts. Based on its experience, Saint FM at St. Peter's high school in Burnham is now very interested in developing into a community radio station. It would be the sort of local organisation that might well attract support should it put in an application to become an access radio station. 
 Let me turn to the independent local radio sector. We have Essex FM, which is a big station that broadcasts across the whole of the county. To be honest, I do not think that it minds whether Saint FM operates in Burnham. We also have a smaller station, Dream 107, which operates out of Chelmsford. It is owned by a small group called Tindle Radio, which owns some six stations. It is a commercial broadcaster, but part of its ethos is that it closely identifies with the local community. 
 Tindle has recently taken over Dream 107. Since then, I have encountered the station almost every week. I went to judge the Maldon popstars concert—Tindle was sponsoring it. I went to the Chelmsford spectacular—Tindle was handing out balloons from its stand. I went to the live music festival—Tindle was compèring it. In a very short time, the station has raised its profile in the community. Part of its promotional activity is a strong commitment to the community. 
 The station is dependent on advertising—in the main, if not almost entirely, local advertising. I refer to a letter that Tindle sent to Professor Everitt, who was commissioned by the Radio Authority to report on the access radio pilot programme. Tindle expressed its fears about the possible effect on it should access radio be granted the right to raise finance from advertising sales: 
''Less than 3 per cent. of our revenue is derived from national advertising.''
 That indicates how important the local market is to the company. Big national advertisers are not that interested in a radio station that broadcasts only in Chelmsford—they have other ways of reaching people—but a business that operates in Chelmsford would be very interested in a radio station that operates from there. The letter from Tindle continues: 
''We rely heavily on the small advertiser, orders of £50 to £100 are commonplace.''
 The chief executive, Kevin Stewart, told Professor Everitt that the loss of that stratum of advertising would be the difference between profit and loss.

Michael Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. While he was discussing Dream 107, I have looked up its details. I can make a helpful suggestion that the Minister might like to take on board or at least comment on. I notice that Dream 107 transmits from Church Green, and that it has only a 100 W
 transmitter. Although it is too late to table an amendment, I wonder whether the Department might take the view that if a radio station transmits on very low power—one could not heat a kettle on 100 W—it should be protected from an access radio station taking advertising. Much larger radio stations, such as Essex Radio, would not be affected by that.

John Whittingdale: That is an interesting suggestion. If my hon. Friend is saying that local stations such as Dream 107 should be protected by access radio applications not being granted, it would clearly be bad news for Saint FM, which wants access radio. If he is saying that in those circumstances stations should not be allowed to take advertising, the suggestion is interesting, but I do not know whether it is sensible to differentiate between those access radio stations that operate in the vicinity of small ILRs and those that do not.
 The question about advertising goes to the heart of the matter, although it is not the only issue. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's amendment makes it clear that sponsorship is also important. Mr. Stewart goes on to say: 
''Sponsorship forms a large part of our revenue in some cases up to 40 per cent. Our sponsors are all-local and form valuable long-term security of revenue. Again any impact on this revenue . . . would spell financial disaster.''
 I am sure that Saint FM and Dream 107 FM are not alone. They illustrate the danger to small commercial broadcasters if access radio is given the freedom to tap into precisely the same advertisers that are currently sustaining small ILRs. I shall quote Mr. Stewart's conclusion because it sums up the position of many ILRs. 
''Access Radio should not survive at the expense of existing small time operators. If it is to be radio by the community for the community then it should use community fundraising methods on a similar line to hospital radio stations. Grants, car boot sales and subscriptions should be able to fund a low power, low cost operation. Stations such as those owned by Tindle are very marginal operations yet do a great service for their respective communities''.
 I do not know whether those should necessarily be the only sources to which ILRs look in order to find alternative sources of funding. 
 The Radio Authority's submission discusses access radio and suggests a number of potential sources of revenue that could be used to fund access radio stations. It lists local and central Government funding, which the Treasury might resist, European funding and lottery funding, which would be an attractive source if it were used to promote community involvement. It suggests revenue drawn from cash bids made by independent national radio licensees and a percentage levy of radio advertising of ILR services, which the commercial radio companies would not be keen on. It also makes the interesting suggestion that a percentage of the BBC licence fee could be put into a pot for financing community radio—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is vigorously shaking his head. If the licence fee exists to promote public service broadcasting, ILR certainly fits within that definition. 
 We should consider the other potential sources of revenue. Although I am encouraged by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East's earlier comment that he can see a middle way, which will satisfy both the advocates of community media and the commercial radio companies, I bear in mind the warnings given by Tindle, which happens to operate in my constituency, but which speaks for a number of smaller ILRs. It says that they have no wish to stop access radio but are concerned that if it finances itself through advertising, that will have serious implications for the viability of the existing ILRs.

Chris Bryant: We have talked a great deal about the fact that the different industries that will be covered by Ofcom are converging, and about the internationalisation of the media world that that is bringing about. However, another facet of the new media revolution is undoubtedly people's desire for news and information about their local community. When most people are asked what local means to them, they mean within three, four or five streets, or within their valley. That is one of the reasons why I want to congratulate the Radio Authority on the work that it has done in enabling access radio to come into being at all and, whether it ends up being called community radio or access radio or whatever, trying to promote it.
 I am also a member of the all-party commercial radio group and I can trump my hon. Friend by virtue of being its vice-chairman. Some of the representation that I have received from the commercial radio sector on the issue has been overstated and possibly exaggerated. Some figures in the commercial sector have tried to say that the advent of community or access radio, and the way in which the Bill is drafted, will yet again re-jig the market against the commercial sector, which is now thriving across the United Kingdom. They claim that such a move would take advertising revenue from them in two ways; first, if community radio were allowed to take advertising, it would deny that advertising income to the commercial sector. Secondly, if community radio started to take listeners away from the commercial sector, there is the danger that commercial radio companies would find it harder to sell their advertising time to the same set of advertisers. That is an exaggerated complaint. It is more likely that local cinemas will be in competition with community radio because, often—particularly at the older, flea pit-style cinemas—one sees advertisements for the local tandoori and Jones the butcher and so on. That is not my experience of Red Dragon FM, Real Radio or Capital FM in London. My experience is that, although they might be local, they attract big advertisers; not the small, high street advertisers that will want to advertise on very localised community radio stations. I had not anticipated speaking so I am not prepared with the name of the community radio station in Pontypridd—

Kim Howells: I will remind my hon. Friend; it is called GTFM and we have both had a lot of complaints that our constituents in a shared village called Trehafod cannot pick up the signal because it is not powerful enough.

Chris Bryant: That is exactly the point that I was going to make. Now that we have come back to the Rhondda, as we are slowly sweeping up the valley, I should point out that the Rhondda is not a south-facing valley but north, east, south and west-facing. It is important to point out that it is difficult to create a community radio station, such as that in Pontypridd, which is unique in that it is so personal and local in the kind of stories that it runs and the kind of music that it plays. I do not think that the whole of south Wales wants to hear ''Delilah'' every day, but it might be that Pontypridd does.
 It is certainly true that, if one were going to create a community radio station, one would probably not create one for whole of the Rhondda. One would create a station for the Rhondda Fawr and a station for the Rhondda Fach; partly because of the transmission problems between the two valleys and partly because they are different communities. Therefore, I strongly oppose amendment No. 490 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. It is too prohibitive. As it stands, the Bill allows the imposition of prohibitions or limitations on the inclusion of advertisements, but the amendment would prohibit advertising, which would be a mistake. 
 New clause 36, also in my hon. Friend's name, is also far too restrictive, although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that it might be useful for the Bill to state precisely what community access radio is, to enable it to grow.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I say to hon. Members that I do not intend to call a stand part debate. If hon. Members have anything to say, they should do so fairly swiftly.

Simon Thomas: I rise to support the comments made by the hon. Members for North Devon and for Rhondda. About 10 years ago, I helped to establish a community radio station in Ceredigion, called Radio Ceredigion. It was one of the first bilingual community radio stations in Wales, broadcasting in Welsh and English. I could tell the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about our difficulty in going round asking for grants and getting resources together. This was before we had objective 1 status, although we did have some European grants even then. It was important to us to establish, very early on, an income stream from local advertisers.
 At that time, there was no other independent radio company in west Wales; it is a moot point whether there is one now. Champion FM comes into the north of my constituency and there are other stations to the south. However, the Ceredigion area is still pretty well served by Radio Ceredigion, which inevitably has developed into something that is more like an independent radio station. It has lost some of its community aspects, mainly because of financing. 
 It would be remiss of this Committee to put any restrictions on access or community radio stations. That might encourage them to give up the ghost early in their development or to sell out to larger local independent radio stations. 
 There is clearly a level of advertising of which local access or community radio can take advantage. In west Wales, that could be done in the Welsh language. For the first time, we could have radio advertising in Welsh. The BBC has not done much of that in the past. New markets can be created and I am surprised to hear the Conservatives arguing so powerfully against market forces. If a radio station can create a new audience and a new market, it should be able to take advantage of advertising. 
 The real challenge that access radio offers is probably to the local newspaper. A newspaper has to fill columns with adverts for the local plumber and butcher and so on, so it may see its income stream affected by a community radio station. I do not think that the vast majority of independent radio stations will have anything to fear. Advertisers who cannot meet the expense of independent radio, or who find that those stations broadcast over too wide an area, will see in access and community radio a unique opportunity to sell directly to a local audience. That is to be welcomed. 
 We should encourage any organisation that has social enterprise at its heart to work as closely as possible with everyone in its community. With any social enterprise, there is a tendency to regard the enterprise as a charity and to look for money in grants all the time. One aspect of community radio that might be developed is a much closer relationship between local businesses and radio stations, whether through sponsorship or advertising. That, in turn, will enhance the social viability of access radio stations, and will increase the social cohesion between local communities and their station. Business has to be part of that. Squeezing community radio into a grant-fixated straitjacket would be an adverse step. 
 I do not think that the fears that, surprisingly, have been expressed by the Conservatives are real. Nevertheless, the Bill contains a provision that allows Ofcom to take action if things prove uncontrollable. I am not sure that we need that provision, but there we are. It is in the Bill now, and it does at least empower Ofcom.

Kim Howells: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. God forbid I should ever defend a member of the Conservative party; however, is not the critical issue the general worry about public money subsidising a small radio station that is shedding advertising? That advertising might be vital to a small radio station such as that which the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford described.

Simon Thomas: I certainly accept that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was describing a particular case that might come under the remit of what the Minister was speaking about. I presume that such cases are the reason why Ofcom has the ability to take action under the Bill. I take the Minister's point, but his example would be a worst-case scenario. We should bear in mind that we do not want public money to be constantly drained into an access or community radio service. If that service is perfectly capable of forging links with local businesses and serving local business needs, and is capable of
 gaining an income stream from that, we should welcome it, rather than try to restrict it.
 From my experience of setting up community radio stations, I know that they are not exactly awash with public finances. It is all that they can do to get lending from a local enterprise agency to buy fixtures and fittings, the transmitter and so forth. It is very unlikely that they would be using money to finance a direct marketing campaign in cut-throat opposition to another local independent radio station. That is why the Bill probably gives Ofcom enough intervention power, and certainly does not need to place more restrictions on community radio.

Calum MacDonald: I rise to support the last two points. The Western Isles have a vibrant and active community radio station called Isles FM. It does not cover all of the islands, as that would be rather a long distance for any radio station to cover. Isles FM has been enormously successful over the years. The richness of local radio is its ability to cater to the local commercial and business market. There is a huge—even international—demand for Stornoway black pudding, for example, but not many radio stations will carry adverts for it. Isles FM does, and with great success. The kind of businesses that look to community radio for those kinds of outlets are not drained away from more commercially minded stations.

John Robertson: The problem for smaller radio stations is not so much advertising, but listeners. If we take listeners away from new radio stations that are trying to set themselves up alongside local radio stations, the new stations will go out of business. They have jobs to support and probably put more money into the area than the small community stations.

Calum MacDonald: I acknowledge the seriousness and sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's point, but that has not been my experience in terms of the islands. When Isles FM was setting up, we had a dedicated Gaelic radio station with an enormous associated audience in the Western Isles, Radio nan Gaidheal, which was delivered by the BBC. However, Isles FM has been able to carve a niche for itself without detracting from the audience share of Radio nan Gaidheal. There is a huge appetite for radio programmes and radio stations that cater for genuine local community interests, and stations that do that successfully will find an audience. I hope that the restrictions that have been talked about will not be implemented.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman mentioned audiences. Surely one of the most interesting features of the past few years has been the growth of radio audiences while television audiences have declined. There has been more penetration of radio and it could be argued that a wider range of radio programmes, including access and community radio, will cause additional audience growth. The situation is not as simple as suggesting that access radio will necessarily
 take audience away from an independent radio station in the same area.

Calum MacDonald: Yes, my experience is that radio audiences can grow even in a community that is extremely well catered for. My area is well catered for by the BBC Gaelic-medium radio, but Isles FM has carved out a substantial audience. I hope that the points made about leaving Ofcom to judge will be taken on board.

Michael Fabricant: It has been useful to have my radio listeners guide here, because I could look up stations while hon. Members were speaking. The hon. Member for Western Isles talked about Isles FM, but that is not an access radio station in the strict meaning of the term. It is a large radio station with a 4 kW transmitter that covers a wide area. It is not a restricted service licence station either; it is a permanent radio station broadcasting on 103 MHz.

Calum MacDonald: Isles FM has achieved that success with a lot of financial and public support. The hon. Gentleman says that the station is permanent, but it did go off the air before being re-established. I hope that it will be permanent.

Michael Fabricant: So do I. I spent a pleasant time listening to Isles FM while I was on holiday after finishing the three peaks walk in a record time of 36 hours. After completing Ben Nevis in three and a half hours, instead of returning to London, I visited the Western Isles to do some more climbing—although I was defeated by the midges. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order. There are rather too many private conversations taking place.

Michael Fabricant: Thank you for your protection, as ever, Mr. Gale.
 The fact that we are discussing access radio rather than community radio is to the credit of the Radio Authority, which was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Way back in the 1960s and 1970s, the Community Radio Association, which was very active, pressed for the introduction of community radio in the United Kingdom. 
 During the 1980s in my former career, I supplied radio equipment and programming to the radio station Sveriges Riksradion in Stockholm, and I was surprised by the number of community radio stations that existed then. However, it is only the 15 licences issued by the Radio Authority over the past two or three years under the guise of access radio that have allowed access radio to take off in the UK. It has been a success, to my surprise. I say that I am surprised because several formats proposed by community radio stations were so boring that they would not get listeners, let alone advertising. That is not the case with access radio. Wide-ranging audiences and age groups have tuned in. There are stations with different ethnicities and there are religious and secular stations. The stations provide urban and, as the hon. Member for Western Isles pointed out, rural services. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made an interesting point and I am glad that the Minister intervened as he did. We are not comparing like with like when comparing access radio 
 with independent local radio. Although I have no doubt that larger radio stations with bigger audiences and bigger transmitters should operate in a market environment, smaller radio stations such as Dream—which, as I said, is only 100 W compared with the 4 kW—4,000 W—of Isles FM—deserve some protection. I do not agree with the earlier argument that there should be no advertising whatever; I think that that should vary from area to area. Ofcom should have the power to determine whether advertising will be permissible in a given area by a given access radio station. The Minister, I hope, will confirm that it will have that power. 
 So, full marks to the Radio Authority for introducing access radio, but there should also be a reminder of the important point that there would be more access radio stations if the BBC did not sit on certain frequencies. I mentioned much earlier—perhaps it was even last year—that it is doing just that. At the moment, there is underemployed frequency space within the BBC's FM sub-band. Either the Minister or the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness—I cannot remember which—previously assured me that Ofcom will have the power to allocate frequencies away from the BBC to commercial radio. Can the Minister confirm that Ofcom will also have the power to move frequencies from the BBC to access radio if necessary?

Kim Howells: We have had an interesting debate, which has explored some important and new issues. I shall comment first on the damaging of local commercial radio. We have come to accept local commercial radio, but it is not that old. In many cases it is a fledgling industry, which, as the Bill reflects, is still consolidating and trying to find its optimum size, and how best to provide the services that the people want.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about the possibly damaging effects of allowing access radio stations to seek even small-scale advertising. We heard a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Much of what has gone on in Wales since the 1980s, as I am sure he will agree, has been cursed by a kind of benefit culture. It is important to think of ways out of that, and he made some good suggestions. The possible relationship with industry and employers is very interesting, but I would not want that to detract from the possibility of an established, licensed, commercially operating company being able to enjoy the adverts that might be generated by, for example, demand for employment or recruitment in a particular region. 
 If access radio goes ahead—long-term decisions on that are yet to be made—we certainly expect that Ofcom will have regard to the local radio ecology and will not license access radio stations where that will damage small-scale independent radio. That is important. The hon. Member for Lichfield, too, made important points. We must protect small stations but, with respect, we should not necessarily start including rules in the Bill about the wattage of transmitters. For example, the 100 W transmitter could reach an awful lot of people in some parts of 
 London but very few in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles, who spends half his life there on a boat.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is absolutely right. I do not want to prescribe anything. I was merely testing whether he felt that the frequency allocation and the power were factors to be considered.

Kim Howells: Yes. I hinted at the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and I face. We are starting to get a campaign running now with GTFM, which is a vigorous and very experimental station. It is run from what was one of the most deprived council estates in my constituency for half of the day, and by university students from the valley for the other half of the day. There is a big demand to listen to it. It reflects what my hon. Friend said about the new demand for much more localness. We experience such a demand for local newspapers. I wonder how they have survived for as long as they have, but I shall describe the order in which I read newspapers when I arrive home on a Friday. I read the Pontypridd and Llantrisant Observer first, after which time I read the South Wales Echo and then anything that my wife has pulled out of the national newspapers that she thinks I should look at, because I now get my news only from radio. Localness is the key.
 As I have said, the Bill already ensures that access radio services must be provided primarily for the good of members of the public or of a particular community, rather than for commercial reasons. Access radio stations must also confer significant benefits on those groups. Furthermore, we set out in the policy narrative that accompanied the draft Bill last May a list of characteristics that access radio stations may be expected to have. Such features should demonstrate evidence of social gain and/or public service aims. There must be small-scale neighbourhood schemes or schemes designed to serve a community interest. Such characteristics must be funded either through non-commercial funding or by a mixture of commercial and non-commercial funding. There must be not-for-profit or non-profit distribution. There must be ring fencing of ownership and operation to separate access radio from independent local radio, and it is important that the features provide opportunities to allow access to the operation of the service for those within the target group. 
 The clause already gives Ofcom sufficient power to take those factors into account, as well as those included in the new clause. I can see no obvious benefit in being more prescriptive, as the new clause proposes. That is particularly true given the fact that access radio pilots are still ongoing and the assessment is not expected until March. It would be unwise to start drawing up a blueprint for access radio in advance of the assessment. However, I am sure that I echo the thoughts of all members of the Committee when I refer to the importance of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East—by the way, having driven through it, I have yet to spot a house in Milton Keynes. The amendments have generated a good debate and have made us think about the way forward for access radio. However, I 
 hope that my hon. Friend will not press them, and will accept that important decisions are yet to be made. He has contributed to a debate that will ensure that we will make better decisions than we might otherwise have done.

Brian White: I should have paid tribute to the Radio Authority earlier, and I am glad that other members of the Committee have done so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 254 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 255 - Application of regulatory regimes

Nick Harvey: I beg to move amendment No. 526, in
clause 255, page 222, line 42, after 'may', insert 
 ', if so requested by OFCOM,'.
 Clause 255 requires Ofcom, under the Bill and the existing Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996, to use its powers to implement the regulatory regime for each licensed service and, under subsection (2) to do its best to enforce those powers. It envisages that it may be necessary from time to time to review and revise what the regulatory regimes comprise. Subsection (4) empowers the Secretary of State to remove from the regulatory regime various requirements that are enshrined in the Bill, although under subsection (5) he would do so only by laying an order before Parliament. 
 It is not unreasonable that from time to time it should be necessary to make such modifications, but it is surprising that the Bill as drafted envisages that the Secretary of State would do so on his own initiative. It is similar to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire before the timetable knife cut off our debate this morning, when the Secretary of State was about to get unilateral powers for the renewal of licences. Why the Bill is so drafted? The Minister may say that in practice it will happen only after a dialogue with Ofcom, and I presume that that will be the case, but if so, why not make it clear in the Bill? It is odd not to bring Ofcom into the loop. 
 The Minister may say that I am gilding the lily by using the verb ''request'', and there may be another, more felicitous form of wording, but it is odd that the Secretary of State, without reference to Ofcom, should take the actions envisaged in the clause.

Kim Howells: Clause 255 requires Ofcom to use its powers under the Broadcasting Acts and the Bill to implement and enforce the regulatory regime for each licensed service. It gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order subject to the affirmative procedure to remove any condition from the regulatory regime. The power may be very useful in future to ensure that if any licence condition becomes inappropriate—legally, that is a difficult word—and is no longer needed it might be removed.
 The provision is one of those that are designed to ensure that the Bill is as future-proof as possible—a highly desirable feature in the world of communications, as has been said several times in the Committee. In addition, although it should not be seen as indicating a lack of confidence in Ofcom—that underpins some of what hon. Member for North Devon said—it may also be seen as a back-stop power guaranteeing adherence to the principle that regulatory burdens should be reduced to the bare minimum. In exercising the power, we expect that the Secretary of State will consult Ofcom and take views from all interested parties. I put it on the record that it is entirely appropriate that she should do so, as it is the best way for her to take an objective decision on the matter. I stress, too, that the order-making power is subject to the affirmative procedure. 
 With those guarantees, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Harvey: The Minister makes a logical case for the proposal to be future-proof. I welcome his expectation that the Secretary of State would at least consult Ofcom when taking advantage of her powers.
 I take the Minister's point that there might be an occasion when Ofcom is not keeping up with the game. If there are to be light regulatory regimes, the Secretary of State might need to use her back-stop power. However, the clause should at least specify that Ofcom should be consulted, even if it does not go as far as the amendment in suggesting that it should be used at Ofcom's request. None the less, in view of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 255 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 256 - OFCOM reports on the fulfilment of

Nick Harvey: I beg to move amendment No.464, in
clause 256, page 223, line 17, leave out 'five', and insert 'three'.
 The subject of the amendment was discussed at considerable length by the Joint Committee of the two Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill before the summer recess. The point is very important. I find it surprising that at a time when the Government are proposing to allow non-European ownership of Channel Five and Channel 3 and are engineering something of a revolution in our ownership rules, they should be relaxing their original intention with respect to the reports that Ofcom will produce on public service television. 
 It seems to me vital to the future of public service television that any failures by broadcasters to fulfil their remits should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. I fear that the current regime has sometimes allowed broadcasters to creep away from some of their commitments. If the general objective of the Bill is to bring into being a newer, lighter-touch system, there is a danger of even further weakening. 
 The draft Bill provided for a three-year interval between reports. The ITC, one of the existing 
 regulators, told the Joint Committee that even that was too long, given the speed of developments in the television market, and argued for an annual report as a vital lever to allow it to correct broadcasters' behaviour. The Joint Committee, in weighing up the arguments, came to the view that there should be a two-year interval. Indeed, I think that an amendment has been tabled suggesting that. 
 I have heard no argument from the Government to justify their frankly baffling decision not to shrink the interval so that there would be an annual report as suggested by the ITC, or a two-yearly report as suggested by the Joint Committee, but instead to relax and row back to a five-yearly report. That will seriously weaken Ofcom's ability to enforce public service remits and hold broadcasters to account.

Nick Palmer: Just to clarify matters, I understand that if it wished to, Ofcom could report every year, but the requirement is that it should do so no less frequently than every five years. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that forcing it to report if it did not want to do so would produce a useful result?

Nick Harvey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but repeat that the existing regulator advocated that the reports should be annual. As a Committee, we thought that that was perhaps going too far. However, as time goes on, the reports will inevitably settle into a cycle or pattern. The possibility of making ad hoc reports is certainly helpful, but the fact is that the industry will fall into a regular cycle of reports. I reiterate that we are envisaging circumstances in which new owners from, America, will arrive on the scene. It would be useful to be certain that the reports will be produced more regularly than at the five-yearly intervals that would be possible under the Bill.

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Member for North Devon said, there was considerable discussion of this matter in the Joint Committee. I have seen it as one of my tasks to try to bring before the Committee some of the issues that were dealt with there, although it is better that the hon. Member for North Devon has done so on this occasion, because on this matter he is more in sympathy with the majority view on the Joint Committee than I was.
 It is worth putting on the record at this point that the Government, in their response to the Joint Committee, went some way to meeting that Committee's objectives. For example, clause 256 contains some changes related to the scope of the review, including the recommendations on the cost of financing public service broadcasting, which are more specific in the clause than they were previously. 
 The structure in the draft Bill that the Joint Committee examined has changed in comparison with the Bill that we are considering now. It gives us more of a hierarchy of review and reporting. For example, clause 344 deals with the annual report, which is factual and statistical. Ofcom could use the annual report to signal the extent to which there was any move away from compliance with the existing structure of public service remits. Used appropriately, it could give rise to proper expectations in the industry about the likelihood of Ofcom initiating a review 
 under clause 256 earlier than in five years' time. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) rightly said, that review need not be as far off as in five years' time. 
 As the Joint Committee said, the review under clause 256 must be seen as a major event. I was struck by the undesirability—as it was put by one of the members of the Joint Committee—of major events in the broadcasting market happening too frequently, especially for public service channels. There should be something of a build-up to major events. A balance must be struck between how frequently the market changes, so that a major event is a proper way of responding to inevitable and sometimes substantial and rapid changes. How desirable would it be for there to be frequent occasions on which public service broadcasting feels that it has been thrown up in the air and is about to fall down again in some different distribution? 
 From that point of view, if Ofcom is as good a regulator as we hope and need it to be, it should have the flexibility to move sooner or later. Rapid changes might be undesirable. It might be better for Ofcom to use the powers that it has to inhibit or approve changes in statements of programme policy under subsequent clauses, or to use its annual reports to indicate that something is going wrong in which it may want to intervene on a more substantive basis. 
 The regulator has three mechanisms, and can use them to send signals to the market of the extent to which the market needs correction of a modest and incremental sort, or to state that the market moving towards the point at which a review of a more substantial kind is required. Such a review would reach into the remits of the channels themselves, and might arise from changes in ownership as well as changes in the marketplace, as opposed to changes that might occur as a result of the statements of programme policy. 
 I am not here to thank the Government for the way in which they responded to the Joint Committee, but it seems to me that there is now some scope for flexibility so that the regulator can behave in a reasonable fashion.

Kim Howells: I shall be brief. The Committee may recall that when the draft Bill was published, it provided for Ofcom's reports on the public service broadcasting sector to appear every three years. However, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, the Joint Committee suggested that a three-year interval is too long and the report should be published every two years.
 Although we felt unable to accept the Joint Committee's recommendation as it stood, it prompted a discussion within the Department and we had another look at Ofcom's reviewing and reporting functions. The outcome of that reconsideration is embodied in the Bill. We propose two distinct Ofcom review and reporting cycles. The first involves an annual factual statistical report by Ofcom covering all radio and television services in the United Kingdom. Provision for that is set out in clause 344. Separately from that, clause 256 requires Ofcom to review and report no less frequently—as my hon. 
 Friend the Member for Broxtowe reminded us—than every five years on public service television broadcasting, including the BBC. 
 The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire could have made the point—actually, he may have made it, but not as bluntly—that one great problem in this country is that we are always reviewing things. I sometimes wonder how we ever get any work done. It is important to retain some flexibility, but, clearly, setting the interval for Ofcom's reports on the public service broadcasting sector is a matter of judgment and there is no obvious right answer. Our view is that five years strikes a sensible balance because Ofcom will also be under a separate obligation to examine all broadcasting services every 12 months. Taken as a whole, the approach set out in clause 256 is consistent with the objective of establishing a regime that is generally self-regulatory, but includes provision for effective intervention by Ofcom when necessary to maintain quality. 
 The clause requires Ofcom to undertake the public service broadcasting review and reporting function at intervals of no more than five years, which means that Ofcom will be able to produce reports more frequently if necessary. In any case, we have made it clear that we expect Ofcom to examine the position of licensed broadcasters on an informal basis in the light of their 
 own annual reports. Ofcom will be able to initiate enforcement action at any time should any licensed broadcaster fail to fulfil its individual public service remit or to make an adequate contribution to the general public service remit. 
 In the light of my comments, I hope that the Committee will agree that our approach on Ofcom reviews and reports in the Bill is the right one, and that the hon. Member for North Devon will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Harvey: It has been useful to hear the Government's explanation. I found the Minister's comments semi-persuasive in that the arrangements in the Bill as drafted are flexible. However, I fear that, in practice, such recommendations tend to represent floors rather than ceilings. If something has to be done not more than every five years, it will be done every five years. On the basis of the Minister's explanation, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 21 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.